FoodNet came into existence in 1996 as a direct result of the Jack-In-The-Box outbreak in 1993. It was set up so we could all see how our various systems and approaches were doing in terms of reducing the prevalence of key foodborne pathogens. So for almost three decades, the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) has tracked infections caused by eight pathogens to determine and attribute US foodborne illness vectors, and enable improvements in public health practices and interventions.
But, as of July 1, that tracking came to an end for six of the eight infections leaving FoodNet surveillance of only Salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), with surveillance canned for Campylobacter, Cyclospora, Listeria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia. Although the tracing of some of these was not all that helpful, others being eliminated are critical food safety issues, including Campylobacter, Listeria, and E. coli O157 as a group within STEC.
Let’s take a look at these:
- Campylobacter is continually a top cause of enteric (intestinal) infections, with incidence having increased in the most recent FoodNet report and above the Healthy People 2030 target rate. CDC estimates it causes 1.5 million illnesses and 197 deaths annually in the US, with most infections unreported.
- Listeria-related foodborne illness is estimated to infect 1,600 people each year in the US causing 260 deaths. With the incidence above the 2030 target rate, Listeria accounted for the greatest number of pathogen-related recalls in 2024: 79 of 180.
- While E. coli STEC remains on the list, the importance of tracking E. coli O157 specifically can’t be undervalued, as O157 alone is estimated to cause 97,000 illnesses, 3,270 hospitalizations, and 30 deaths annually in the US.
Of interest in the significant reduction, as well, was its lack of transparency – which is claimed as a hallmark of this administration – as no public announcement was made or comment requested. Rather CDC’s written communication to the Connecticut Public Health Department – one of the 10 states in the collaboration – was viewed by NBC News, which then made it public. The reason for the reduction was stated to be based on funding having “not kept pace with the resources required to maintain the continuation of FoodNet surveillance for all eight pathogens.”
This is of concern because FoodNet, which is a collaboration between CDC, USDA, FDA, and 10 state health departments, is the only federal system actively tracking multiple foodborne diseases, rather than simply using state-provided information.
FoodNet is signaling how well we are doing overall in controlling the level of the main foodborne pathogens. It is measuring both sporadic disease as well as outbreaks and has been an important metric when setting health goals for the United Satates.
An HHS spokesperson told CIDRAP that FoodNet is focusing on Salmonella and STEC because they are among the top five contributors to foodborne illnesses and related hospitalizations and deaths in the US, stating that it has different surveillance systems that track infections caused by the other pathogens.
The CDC statement publicized by NBC also said that state health departments can still report cases through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, there is a concern that states may not be able to conduct sufficient surveillance without CDC funding. This concern was validated by the Colorado Department of Public Health which stated, when contacted by NBC, that it, too, would need to scale back activities for some pathogens if funding were to be reduced. Of the other 10 collaboration states, some had received notification of the change, while others had not yet received any official communication or were awaiting information on how they were to conduct future surveillance.
With bacterial contamination consistently being a leading cause of recalls since the turn of the century, second only to undeclared allergens, and Listeria monocytogenes accounting for 45% of all biological contamination recalls in that period, it seems that there has been some displacement of funding for making America healthy. We are all in favor of cutting programs that are not helpful or important, but this decision does not appear to have considered the value of FoodNet. Yes, remove some of the less relevant pathogens, but limit the surveillance to just two feels like a major retrograde step in US public health.
